<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/skins/common/feed.css?207"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=User%3AMalvaGuevara504</id>
		<title>User:MalvaGuevara504 - Revision history</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=User%3AMalvaGuevara504"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?title=User:MalvaGuevara504&amp;action=history"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T02:19:33Z</updated>
		<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.15.1</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?title=User:MalvaGuevara504&amp;diff=143814&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>MalvaGuevara504:&amp;#32;Created page with 'Fictionality and the presentation in a narrative are the two features most commonly invoked to distinguish novels from histories. In a historical perspective they are problematic…'</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://pm.haifa.ac.il/index.php?title=User:MalvaGuevara504&amp;diff=143814&amp;oldid=prev"/>
				<updated>2012-08-22T16:15:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Created page with &amp;#39;Fictionality and the presentation in a narrative are the two features most commonly invoked to distinguish novels from histories. In a historical perspective they are problematic…&amp;#39;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;Fictionality and the presentation in a narrative are the two features most commonly invoked to distinguish novels from histories. In a historical perspective they are problematic criteria. Histories were supposed to be narrative projects throughout the early modern period. Their authors could include inventions as long as they were rooted in traditional knowledge or in order to orchestrate a certain passage. Historians would thus invent and compose speeches for didactic purposes. [http://www.goldenapple.com.vn/GoldenApple/vn/to-chuc-su-kien.html dat tiec tai nha]Novels can, on the other hand, depict the social, political, and personal realities of a place and period with a clarity and detail historians would not dare to explore.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line between history and novel is eventually drawn between the debates novelists and historians are supposed to address in the West and wherever the Western pattern of debates has been [http://www.goldenapple.com.vn Hoc nau an] introduced: Novels are supposed to show qualities of literature and art. Histories are by contrast supposed to be written in order to fuel a public debate over historical responsibilities. A novel can hence deal with history. It will be analyzed, however, with a look at the almost timeless value it is supposed to show in the hands of private readers as a work of art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The critical demand is a source of constant argument: Does the specific novel have these &amp;quot;eternal qualities&amp;quot; of art, this &amp;quot;deeper meaning&amp;quot; an interpretation tries to reveal? The debate itself had positive effects. It allowed critics to cherish fictions that are clearly marked as such. The novel is not a historical forgery, for it does not hide the fact that it was  [http://www.goldenapple.com.vn/GoldenApple Day nau an] made with a certain design. The word novel can appear on book covers and title pages; the artistic effort or the sheer suspense created can find a remark in a preface or on the blurb. Once it is stated that this is a text whose craftsmanship we should acknowledge literary critics will be responsible for the further discussion. The new responsibility (historians were the only qualified critics up into the 1750s) made it possible to publicly disqualify much of the previous fictional production: Both the early-18th-century roman à clef and its fashionable counterpart, the nouvelle historique, had offered narratives with – by and large scandalous – historical implications. Historians had discussed them with a look at facts they had related. The modern literary critic who became responsible for fictions in the 1750s offered a less scandalous debate: A work is &amp;quot;literature&amp;quot;, art, if it has a personal narrative, heroes to identify with, fictional inventions, style and suspense – in short anything that might be handled with the rather personal ventures of creativity and artistic freedom. It may relate facts with scandalous accuracy, or distort them; yet one can ignore any such work as worthless if it does not try to be an achievement in the new field of literary works[1] – it has to compete with works of art and invention, not with true histories. The new scandal is if it fails to offer literary merits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historians reacted and left much of their own previous &amp;quot;medieval&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;early modern&amp;quot; production to the evaluation of literary critics. New histories discussed public perceptions of the past – the decision that turned them into the perfect platform on which one can question historical liabilities in the West. Fictions, allegedly an essentially personal subject matter, became, on the other hand, a field of materials that call for a public interpretation: they became a field of cultural significance to be explored with a critical and (in the school system) didactic interest in the subjective perceptions both of artists and their readers.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MalvaGuevara504</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>